In March 2024, Mr Rajan Patel applied for permission to demolish a vacant former care home and erection of a part four-storey and part five-storey building with basement parking housing a mix of 36nos dwellings with associated bin and cycle provision.

The site is located at Hobkirk House, an old care home, on Blagdon Road in New Malden.

However, Kingston Council refused the application yesterday, 15 August.

In a statement on behalf of the council, Barry John Lomax, Head of Development Management said: "The Council of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames, as the Local Planning Authority under their powers provided by the [Town and Country Planning Act 1990], do hereby REFUSE planning permission for the development."

The reasons behind the council's decision are:

The proposal would not provide affordable housing. The ability to provide affordable housing is prevented by the unnecessary inclusion of an underground car park.

As such the proposal would conflict with Policy H5 of the London Plan and Policy DM15 of the Council's adopted LDF Core Strategy.

2. The proposed development by virtue of its size, siting and design would create an incongruous addition to the host site and street scene that would be visually intrusive and out of keeping with the general pattern and form of development in the immediate surrounding area.

It would also detract from the character and appearance of the host site and the surrounding area.

As such the proposal would not comply with Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021 and Policies CS8, DM10 and DM12 of the LDF Core Strategy 2012.

3. The proposed development by virtue of its size, siting and design would result in the overlooking of neighbouring properties and as such give rise to a loss of privacy and an unacceptable sense of enclosure to the detriment of their outlook.

It would also diminish the existing living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and the privacy of the neighbouring school.

The proposal would not accord with Policy DM10 Kingston Core Strategy (2012).

Out of 88 contributors asked about their thoughts on the proposal, 83 objected to the proposal, while only two supported it, and three remained neutral.

25 of the contributors were neighbours to the site.